I asked for a loan on behalf of NastyMining in exchange for 25% of the NastyFans distributions. A loan in which I also participated in as a lender.
Yep, your main payout source was NastyFans distribution, but this is not enough to payout loan(in reasonable perspective), then you may not pay it at all?
No. Never once did I ever change the % in the lending agreement.
2013-12-20 [policy change] temporarily increase donations for fundraising to 75%
2014-04-05 [policy change] reduce donations for fundraising to 50%
And you used donations to payback lenders, so not all of them were in same situation. And now you want for rest of them to stick to the most original agreement,and recalculate payout success like there was no payout increase at all. That sounds unfair to me....
I am only offering lenders an option. They are free to stick to the original terms of the agreement if they would like. So far 90% of lenders are in favor of the new agreement.
Your offering lenders a choice, to receive some funds now, or not to recive them never with 95% probability.
Isn`t that strange offer? Because it obvious that it`s better to get smth now, then never? But why are you asking to forget about original loan amount?
I am offering to exchange debt for an immediate payout and NastyFans seats. Where is the not repayable part coming from? No lender is being forced to change any agreement. It is voluntary.
According to BTC difficulty history and NastyFans "progress" you wont be able to repay debt ever with your original offer.
The offer is dependent upon factors like the USD rate when the funds were lended as well as the lender's place in line of repayment. This was negotiated with several of the lenders over a multiple week period and 90% feel it was done fairly. It should also be noted that the offer has a total current value of over $77,000 when the original borrowed amount was less than $26,000 for the remaining lenders.
First of all, you can`t calculate BTC loan in usd, because that was YOUR decision to make a BTC loan.
Second, your total current value is unreachable, because it is nearly impossible to sell NastyFan shares at last order price (personally i doubt that you can sell it at all)... Your actual BTC refund usd value would be much less than original BTC usd value.
The refund if paid out per the original agreement would only go to the next two people in line. This way, it will go to 90%, or 100% should everyone eventually agree. The 1 lender who is holding out would not be due to receive any of the refund per the original agreement as he is several places down the line. So really this is a moot point.
IMHO, main purpose of loan, is that borrower will return principal. So you offered payback plan, which sounded reasonable, but when it failed you offered not equal(in terms of BTC) repayment plan at all.
I am actually offering 18.3% of NastyFans to lenders. This is overly generous for three big reasons. 1) 33% of the loans have already been repaid, so you could argue only 16.5% should be due to lenders. 2) In addition to seats, lenders are receiving an initial payment of 42 BTC. 3) NastyFans seats are better than owning an expiring right to a share of the distributions.
1)As loan is not repayable in life time, it doesn`t matter what amount of it was repaid as people where promised at least 25% of nastyFans income, they can have if only if they get 25% of shares.
2)Initial payment wont cover their loss at all, end time line wont become much closer, eternity-17% is still eternity.
3) That`s your own opinion, so fat it was bad investment in terms of BTC... Time will tell, but that doesn`t cover 80% loss of funds.
I have never changed anything with the original agreement.
Actually, there was no agreement. There was your loan request, with repayment plan, which failed. But you have your own,very suitable for your situation, opinion.
If Butterfly Labs priced our order in BTC and was issuing our refund in BTC, there would be no need to include USD in the equation.
Lenders had no deal with USD and Butterfly Labs,you had. But why that should bother them?
No. It is not. I plan to reimburse everyone to their satisfaction, or at the very least honor any previous agreement I've made. Like I've said many times now, no lender is being forced to change the original agreement. 90% of them have chosen to make a new agreement.
Without your actions most of your lenders wont get their funds at all, that your burden. Your current one doesnt seem to be very fair, because they might get much higher return if you just redistribute most of NastyFans income to them proportionally. But apparently that not in your interest, but you have obligations to your lenders(and to NastyFans too of course).
The original agreement doesn't allow me to do that. Hence why a new agreement is the fair thing to do, as evidenced by the overwhelming lender support.
Your original agreement didn`t covered a lot of cases, its all about trust and common sense.
I imagine that the elimination of a huge chunk of debt accompanied with increasing the distribution % per seat will be seen as a huge positive to the organization. We will see when a NastyFans poll is put up.
But if you wont grantee them that,first of all, you`ll protect their interests and funds, then i have serious doubts, IMHO. And in current situation it turns out that you are not going to take full responsibility for you own decision( and that you can easily make bad offers, which you will honor in the way you are comfortable) .
